Wisconsin Supreme Court Restabilizies Landlord-Tenant Relationships

The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently restored greater certainty to Wisconsin’s landlord-tenant laws by overturning a Court of Appeals decision in Koble Investments v. Marquardt. The earlier ruling had created significant concern among landlords because it suggested that a lease containing certain prohibited provisions could be declared void, potentially requiring landlords to refund all rent paid by a tenant, plus double damages and attorney fees. Read below to learn more.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Restabilizies Landlord-Tenant Relationships

On Friday, June 5, 2026, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued the final word on a long and frustrating chapter for Wisconsin landlords and property managers inKoble v. Marquardt.

Background:

In 2020, a landlord terminated a tenant’s lease for failure to timely pay her rent. Unfortunately, the lease termination occurred while the governor’s moratorium on evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic remained in place. While the former tenant ultimately refrained from most participation in the case, her former attorney pursued the matter in an attempt to recoup his attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred defending the former tenant from the eviction. Beyond attempting to evict a tenant during the eviction moratorium, the landlord’s lease was problematic in a number of respects, the most significant of which was that the lease failed to include the statutorily mandated notice of domestic abuse protections. In 2024, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued a published opinion holding that, among other things, the Wisconsin Consumer Act applied to residential tenancies such that landlords and property managers would be subject to the same rules and regulations as debt collectors. The Court of Appeals also held that the lease’s failure to include the notice of domestic abuse protections rendered the entire lease void and ordered the landlord to pay back to the tenant twice the amount of rent she had paid throughout her entire occupancy under the void lease—plus attorneys’ fees.

The 2024 Koble holding upended the world of landlord/tenant law in Wisconsin and opened the floodgates to a trove of class action lawsuits and myriad other headaches for landlords and property managers.

Supreme Court Decision:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in nearly every respect and largely returned landlord-tenant law to its pre-Koble status. The primary takeaways are that:

1. The Wisconsin Consumer Act does not apply to residential landlord-tenant relationships in Wisconsin. This has always been assumed by legal professionals throughout the state, but the Court of Appeals had interpreted leases as “installment contracts,” which brought them under the far-stricter purview of the Wisconsin Consumer Act. The Supreme Court has now clarified that landlord-tenant relationships are governed by Chapter 704 and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (not the Consumer Act and the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions). From a cost-exposure perspective, this is very good news for landlords and property managers and returns the practice of landlord-tenant law to its prior and longstanding status quo, eliminating the concerns for landlords and property managers that they would be governed by the more stringent rules and regulations applicable to debt collectors.

2. Even where a lease is void, tenants must show an actual loss before they might be entitled to recover double damages under Wis. Stat. s. 100.20. The lower appellate court had previously held that, where a lease is void, there is no cognizable benefit to the tenant for the use of an apartment under that void lease and, therefore, the landlord was required to reimburse all rents paid to the tenant (doubled pursuant to statute) as well as attorneys’ fees. The lower court reasoned that the dangers posed by a void lease are so serious that the landlord could not offset the exposure by the benefit of the tenant receiving housing even under the void lease.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s final ruling on the issue makes clear that tenants must show actual financial harm or loss to be entitled to any recoupment. No longer will damages be presumed merely by virtue of the existence of a void lease. For landlords and property managers with long-term tenants, this clarification and correction by the Wisconsin Supreme Court substantially limits the financial exposure for tenant claims about void leases.

Takeaways:

During the protracted and painful life under the Court of Appeals’ decision in Koble, I’ve long maintained that the old law school adage applies—bad facts make bad law. The Court of Appeals in Koble was clearly displeased with a landlord who had a very bad lease (it did not include statutory notices of domestic abuse protections, among other shortfalls) and who had attempted to move forward against a tenant during the then-in-place COVID-19 moratorium on evictions. While the end result here is absolutely the correct result, it’s cost untold thousands in terms of hours and money to pursue the matter to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and for unwitting landlords and property owners left in the lurch and facing class-action claims in the interim. If nothing else, Koble serves as a helpful reminder of how vitally important it is for landlords and property managers to conduct regular lease reviews to ensure that their leases comply with ever-changing rules and regulations regarding the relationships between landlords and tenants.

If it’s been a while since you’ve had your lease reviewed, please contact the Conway, Olejniczak & Jerry landlord-tenant team today!

Written By:
Attorney Joshua M. Koch